Secure Energy Services Inc. v Canadian Energy Services Inc., 2022 ABCA 200


Read full decision. Summary prepared by Alan Macek:

The appellants’ primary argument on appeal is the chambers judge mischaracterized the “threshold question” as being whether Secure’s allegations of misappropriation of confidential information was statute-barred by the Limitations Act, or, alternatively, doomed to fail by virtue of a mutual release that had been signed by Ewanek and Secure’s corporate predecessor, Genesis. The chambers judge answered both questions in the affirmative. Secure argues the threshold question should properly have been “what is the inventive concept, who conceived the inventive concept, when and where”. It argues that question must first be decided in Federal Court pursuant to s 52 of the Patent Act. … The proceedings brought in Alberta are enforcement proceedings and any defences the party might have apply to that action. Available defences include that a claim is statute barred under the Limitations Act, or otherwise precluded because the current lawsuit is governed by the terms of a settlement release. Secure cannot assert a title or an entitlement that was released or is statute barred. … In my view, the appeal should be dismissed. (DLA Piper represented the successful respondent on this appeal)


Canadian Intellectual Property